On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> The relevant question here isn't whether she can communicate, but whether >> she can understand well enough to be her own legal person (e.g. it might >> rely on being able to communicate consent, etc.). Something of the sort >> came up around CFJ 1856; following that attempted registration, someone >> (I forget who) tried to register on behalf of their (then) 3-year old. -G. > > It was me, and she was 1 at the time. > > In any case, the standard for personhood doesn't require an > understanding of the rules.
No, but the question is how sufficient to abilities have to be to satisfy all of "communicate in email in English." My own daughter (4) can certainly say what she needs to say, and she often "composes" emails by saying things that I type or she helps me type. But a lot of times these communications are spread out, not complete sentences to the receiver of the email (e.g. "Tell grandma I love her" is a directive to me that I re-arrange) and if I typed verbatim what she communicated to me it would be generally incomplete and not constitute anything that *Agora* would pass as a communication for any *legal* purpose, which is the key. Maybe she and I together make a "person" (a partnership?) but I wouldn't say that she alone passes the (strict Agoran legal) definition that includes *all three* of 'email', 'communicate', and 'English'. Of course, I have no evidence on the part of Murphy's daughter (eir CFJ description of her skills covers a range of abilities), which is why I said "UNDETERMINED" based on current evidence. -Goethe
